honour of the rite, and for the greater security of its validity; but the Church has always held that consecration by one bishop is valid. What Gregory says is, that where no more are to be had, as in Augustine's circumstances, he need have no conscientious scruple about consecrating alone.

A rather remarkable passage in this letter, in which Gregory speaks of a visit of Augustine to Gaul, and contemplates his acting in consort with Virgilius of Arles, in the correction of abuses among the clergy there, is made more important by the fact that there exists a letter to Virgilius on the same subject. He says to Virgilius: "If our common brother, Bishop Augustine, shall happen to come to you, I desire that your love will, as is becoming, receive him so kindly and affectionately that he may be supported by the honour of your consolation, and others be informed how brotherly love is to be cultivated. And since it often happens that those who are at a distance sooner than others understand the things that need correction, if any crimes of priest or others shall be laid before you, you will, in conjunction with him, sharply inquire into the same. And do you both act so strictly and carefully against those things which offend God and provoke His wrath, that, for the amendment of others, the punishment may fall upon the guilty, and the innocent may not suffer an ill name."-Dated June 22, 601 a.d.

The suggestion to one bishop to interfere with another bishop's discipline over his clergy, and to the latter bishop to admit the interference, seems strange. We are inclined to suspect that in the phrase, “the crimes of priests, or others," Gregory means priests or

bishops, and that the particular crime he has in mind is that of simony. We know from the History of Gregory of Tours, that the wealthy and powerful bishoprics of Gaul were beginning to be sought by Franks, and the Frank kings were beginning to nominate to them men totally unfit, as rewards for service or gifts of favour, and that gross simony was becoming common. Gregory had much at heart at this time to get a Gallic synod summoned under the presidency of Syagrius, to correct these abuses; it seems probable that he had sent some verbal communication to Augustine as to his possible assistance in the matter, and that the letter to Virgilius was to inform him that Augustine had Gregory's authority for co-operating with him.

On what ground Gregory took upon himself to place under Augustine's authority the British bishops, whose position was quite as independent as that of the Gallican bishops, he does not explain; and the question will be more conveniently considered further on, when Augustine took steps to act upon this direction.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH IN CANTERBURY

THE Conversion of Ethelbert had not taken place till some time after the date of Gregory's letter to Bertha, the internal evidence of which assigns it to the year 597 A.D., and it took place some time before the letter to Ethelbert, which is dated 22nd June, A.D. 601. We are disposed to place it sooner rather than later, within these limits.

The work of the Church, consolidated and stimulated by its possession of the completed episcopal constitution, and encouraged by the very striking success indicated by the baptism of the ten thousand, would naturally be prosecuted with hopeful energy. From the first it had the sympathy of the King, or he would not at once have given the missionaries permission to preach and make proselytes. We can easily imagine the influences which would be brought to bear upon him-the teachings of Augustine, added to those of Liudhard, the powerful influence of Bertha; and we can believe that he had abandoned his old religion and its practice for some time before he took the final step of declaring his conversion, and submitting to baptism. The King had to think of the opinions of his chiefs and counsellors, and of the disposition of the mass of his people; and to give them time to reconcile themselves to the idea

of the new order of things. It does not appear that Ethelbert took the step which King Edwin afterwards took in Northumbria, of formally submitting the question of a general change of religion to discussion in the Witan. But the conversations between the King and Queen and the two bishops would often take place in the King's hall, in the hearing of those who sat at the royal board; and whenever the King finally declared himself convinced, we may be sure that others of his thanes and knights and wise men would be ready to declare their concurrence in his convictions; and when the King was baptized in the Church of St. Martin, they would follow him to the font. That Whitsunday was chosen for the great ceremony, as the monkish historians affirm, may be accepted as true, and that it was the Whitsunday of 598 is a probable statement. Bede expressly says that "after the King believed and was baptized, greater numbers flocked together daily to hear the Word, and, forsaking their heathen rites, were joined to the unity of the Church"; and that "the King so far encouraged their conversion, that, while he compelled none to embrace Christianity, he showed more affection to the believers, as to his fellow-citizens in the heavenly kingdom."

Then we enter upon the history of the measures which the King took on behalf of the Church. Among other things, he allowed Augustine "to build and repair churches in all places." The medieval monks of St. Augustine's say that, as a first step, Ethelbert gave to Augustine a building in which he had been accustomed to practise heathen worship, situated between the east wall of the city and the Church of St. Martin, and that Augustine turned it into a church, and dedicated

it to St. Pancratius. The reason given by Thomas of Elmham for this dedication is, because it was the sight of the English boys in the Roman Forum which caused Gregory to undertake the mission to England, and that Gregory's Monastery of St. Andrew's was built upon the patrimony of St. Pancratius, the popular boy saint of Rome. We know how exiles of all times fondly give to their new settlements the names of their old homes; it is interesting to recognise the feeling in the hearts of these Roman exiles. Their first monastary they dedicate to SS. Peter and Paul, the patron saints of Rome, and the church at Rochester to St. Andrew, and this chapel to St. Pancras.

We learn from Bede's trustworthy History that Ethelbert "gave his teachers a settled residence in his Metropolis of Canterbury, with such possessions of different kinds as were necessary for their subsistence." Hitherto they had had their temporary lodging in the building in the Stable Gate, now they had a settled residence assigned to them. Thorn says that the King gave them his own palace and went to reside at Reculver, where he built himself a new house out of the Roman material which lay ready to use in that ancient Roman town. The medieval monk appears to be trying to establish a parallel with the legendary story that Constantine on his conversion gave up his palace to the Pope, and left him ruler in Rome while he went and built himself a new capital at Constantinople; but as the latter story is contrary to the facts, so the former is unsupported and not very probable. Hitherto the King's officers had supplied the strangers with what they needed; now the King endowed them with such possessions as were necessary.

In